DC letting Superman go?

[RobertScorpio]

I mean, why not? It is almost the reverse of what happend with BATMAN in the 60s, well I think. Wasn't the BATMAN series with Adam West, and especially the movie version, a 20th Century Fox production?

I think this new 'interest' in Shazam/Captain Marvel is DC's way of prepping us for a time when Superman won't be in DC's lineup. I know it sounds crazy, since Superman is by far the most famous comic book character. But Comic-book sales are not what they used to be, especially in this new age of media. I think DC may see comic books, eventually, going the way of the LP or 8 Track tape, so why bother paying the uber $$$ to renew or buy ownership in the 'comic book' side of Superman's business.

I could see DC letting Superman go, but Warners continuing with the movie license, which is far more profitable than sinking comic book industry.

Rob

 

[Lt. Trull]

Well... it could be because DC lost a lawsuit and only got pieces of the superman mythos....

http://dietrichthrall.wordpress.com...warner-brothers-will-lose-all-rights-in-2013/

blah blah blah...

This means the Siegels now control depictions of Superman’s origins from the planet Krypton, his parents Jor-L and Lora, Superman as the infant Kal-L, the launching of the infant Superman into space by his parents as Krypton explodes and his landing on Earth in a fiery crash.

blah blah blah...

But that didn’t give them the full Superman copyright because DC owns other important elements like Superman’s ability to fly, the term kryptonite, the Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White characters, Superman’s vision powers and expanded origins.

blah blah blah...

 

[RobertScorpio]

Well... it could be because DC lost a lawsuit and only got pieces of the superman mythos....

http://dietrichthrall.wordpress.com...warner-brothers-will-lose-all-rights-in-2013/

blah blah blah...

This means the Siegels now control depictions of Superman’s origins from the planet Krypton, his parents Jor-L and Lora, Superman as the infant Kal-L, the launching of the infant Superman into space by his parents as Krypton explodes and his landing on Earth in a fiery crash.

blah blah blah...

But that didn’t give them the full Superman copyright because DC owns other important elements like Superman’s ability to fly, the term kryptonite, the Lex Luthor, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White characters, Superman’s vision powers and expanded origins.

blah blah blah...

Oh, I agree. But isn't it so "PC" that we are supposed to just think that DC should just cave in and pay their estates as if everything that is associated SUPERMAN is created by them?

I got into this debate with this old fart over the Legion of Superheroes. He thought that any book that Superman (Boy) ever appeared in, that was created for him, should be considered part of the original material. Huh???? That's just silly.

Has anyone actually put a dollar amount on how much the estates think they are due? I mean, are we talking BILLIONS or MILLIONS?

Rob

 

[23skidoo]

Has anyone actually put a dollar amount on how much the estates think they are due? I mean, are we talking BILLIONS or MILLIONS?

Rob

Hundreds of millions, probably.* Fact is, though, do they really reasonably and realistically expect that DC - or any other company - would really pony up this money? If DC drops Superman, that's the end of the character, at least in the traditional sense, as you won't see IDW or Marvel bothering to come up with the cash they want.

It's sort of like how back in the 1960s Terry Nation withdrew the Daleks from Doctor Who because he felt he could make more money with them elsewhere. That tanked bigtime, and they quietly came back about 5 years later. And it nearly happened again with the new Doctor Who series not being able to use them, but somebody in the Nation estate realized they'd be losing out on a big thing if they held the Daleks close to their chest.

I don't see comics disappearing anytime soon. I do see perhaps them changing to more the manga format of graphic novels, especially as more comic dealers become "picky" about what they order (not exaggerating - one shop I used to frequent was only bringing in occasional issues of some titles, rendering it impossible to follow story arcs).

However, Superman and Batman are so intertwined with DC's titles, that if they lost the rights to use them, I wouldn't be too confident regarding DC's ongoing survival.

I really hope greed doesn't destroy the icon. The two men who created Superman are now dead. They were the only people who, really, deserved to benefit from anything. And as I recall it, it was their decision to sell the rights to Superman to DC for $1.98 back in the 1940s or whenever it was...

It'll be ironic as hell if Captain Marvel takes over as the main DC superhero, since DC was responsible for shutting him down back in the 1940s because of his similarity to Superman.

* actually, maybe not. I read this article:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

... and apparently DC might only be on the hook for profits since 1999. That's a lot of Superman, but doesn't include, say, the whole Death of Superman era, or the Reeve movies, or the Superman animated series. Tens of millions might be more accurate, as the post-1999 comic book market is a shadow of what it was pre-1999, and Superman Returns didn't set the world on fire, and they dodged a bullet by not using the S-word on Smallville.

Alex

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

DC won't let Superman go nor will the Siegels (and soon the Shusters) shop the property around.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Has anyone actually put a dollar amount on how much the estates think they are due? I mean, are we talking BILLIONS or MILLIONS?

Rob

Hundreds of millions, probably. Fact is, though, do they really reasonably and realistically expect that DC - or any other company - would really pony up this money? If DC drops Superman, that's the end of the character, at least in the traditional sense, as you won't see IDW or Marvel bothering to come up with the cash they want.

It's sort of like how back in the 1960s Terry Nation withdrew the Daleks from Doctor Who because he felt he could make more money with them elsewhere. That tanked bigtime, and they quietly came back about 5 years later. And it nearly happened again with the new Doctor Who series not being able to use them, but somebody in the Nation estate realized they'd be losing out on a big thing if they held the Daleks close to their chest.

I don't see comics disappearing anytime soon. I do see perhaps them changing to more the manga format of graphic novels, especially as more comic dealers become "picky" about what they order (not exaggerating - one shop I used to frequent was only bringing in occasional issues of some titles, rendering it impossible to follow story arcs).

However, Superman and Batman are so intertwined with DC's titles, that if they lost the rights to use them, I wouldn't be too confident regarding DC's ongoing survival.

I really hope greed doesn't destroy the icon. The two men who created Superman are now dead. They were the only people who, really, deserved to benefit from anything. And as I recall it, it was their decision to sell the rights to Superman to DC for $1.98 back in the 1940s or whenever it was...

It'll be ironic as hell if Captain Marvel takes over as the main DC superhero, since DC was responsible for shutting him down back in the 1940s because of his similarity to Superman.

Alex

This should be the next SUPERMAN movie...SUPERMAN vs THE LEGAL SYSTEM

Rob

 

[TheBrew]

Which would still be more exciting than Returns.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Which would still be more exciting than Returns.

Agreed...because, hopefully, Lex Luthor wouldn't be the villian...again. Though they woud probably cast a bald actor as the 'bad' lawyer.

Rob

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Most likely DC will simply pay the families bajillions for the right to use the character - as well they should have to.

Or maybe there can be a bidding war for movie rights. That would be fun.

It would be interesting to see how the character would be handled by a different organization than Warners, though.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

DC won't let Superman go, nor will the the families be able to shop the Superman rights to other comic book companies or studios since trademark (as distinct from copyright) would prevent them from doing so. There'll be a settlement in all likelihood.

As for Batman being a Fox production in the 1960s, DC Comics merged with Warners (then Warner-Seven Arts) in 1969, so the 1960s Batman deal preceded that.

 

[gastrof]

Most likely DC will simply pay the families bajillions for the right to use the character - as well they should have to...

You buy a small convenience store from a "Mom'n'Pop", and as time goes by you make a better go of it than they did. The store expands in size, in what items you sell, and eventually it's a full fledged grocery store.

The one store, after a few more years, becomes a successful chain.

"Mom'n'Pop" show up and say "We like what you've done with our business. Now give it back."

Yeah.

Sure.

Time Warner "should have to" pay the creators' heirs for the character that S&S flat out SOLD to National Comics DECADES ago.

Makes perfect sense.

I buy an old house, and fix it up. The original owners show up and demand "their" property back.

Yep.

I should just hand it right over to them. After all, it's "theirs".

Tell me another one.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Copyright, and copyright law, doesn't quite work like that.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

When has anyone around here let facts get in the way of their two centers?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...

Tell me another one.

It's actually useful to know something about the law, copyright, etc and to treat such with some sense of fairness rather than constructing wildly inapplicable analogies.

You don't.

 

[paudemge]

...

Tell me another one.

It's actually useful to know something about the law, copyright, etc and to treat such with some sense of fairness rather than constructing wildly inapplicable analogies.

You don't.

Maybe it is the copyright laws that are wrong. the analogies seem pretty apt to me. Owner A sales X to buyer B, now owner B improves X, and decades later Owner A's heirs want more money from B.
That doesn't seem unfair to anybody else?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Maybe it is the copyright laws that are wrong.

Nope.

DC needs to pony up some money or get out of the Superman business - the character doesn't belong to them.

 

[AviTrek]

...

Tell me another one.

It's actually useful to know something about the law, copyright, etc and to treat such with some sense of fairness rather than constructing wildly inapplicable analogies.

You don't.

Maybe it is the copyright laws that are wrong. the analogies seem pretty apt to me. Owner A sales X to buyer B, now owner B improves X, and decades later Owner A's heirs want more money from B.
That doesn't seem unfair to anybody else?

Except here is the full fledged analogy:
Owner A sells X to buyer B knowing that X will belong to the public in Y years.
Congress then decides to change Y to Y+Z
Owner A then complains to Congress that they only sold X for Y years so it should revert to them after Y years.
Congress agrees and the next time it changes the law from Y+Z to Y+Z+Z it explicitly adds a provision so owners who sold X under the old law can reclaim ownership after the original Y years are expired.
Owner A exercises that right.
Buyer B says no you don't.
Owner A says, we'll see you in court.
Court agrees with owner A.

 

[paudemge]

It's actually useful to know something about the law, copyright, etc and to treat such with some sense of fairness rather than constructing wildly inapplicable analogies.

You don't.

Maybe it is the copyright laws that are wrong. the analogies seem pretty apt to me. Owner A sales X to buyer B, now owner B improves X, and decades later Owner A's heirs want more money from B.
That doesn't seem unfair to anybody else?

Except here is the full fledged analogy:
Owner A sells X to buyer B knowing that X will belong to the public in Y years.
Congress then decides to change Y to Y+Z
Owner A then complains to Congress that they only sold X for Y years so it should revert to them after Y years.
Congress agrees and the next time it changes the law from Y+Z to Y+Z+Z it explicitly adds a provision so owners who sold X under the old law can reclaim ownership after the original Y years are expired.
Owner A exercises that right.
Buyer B says no you don't.
Owner A says, we'll see you in court.
Court agrees with owner A.

That doesn't seem fair, in 1938the Character Superman was sold and bought in good faith, just because S&S weren't smart enough to ensure that they would have gotten a piece of the future pie shouldn't be DC's fault.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Maybe it is the copyright laws that are wrong. the analogies seem pretty apt to me. Owner A sales X to buyer B, now owner B improves X, and decades later Owner A's heirs want more money from B.
That doesn't seem unfair to anybody else?

Except here is the full fledged analogy:
Owner A sells X to buyer B knowing that X will belong to the public in Y years.
Congress then decides to change Y to Y+Z
Owner A then complains to Congress that they only sold X for Y years so it should revert to them after Y years.
Congress agrees and the next time it changes the law from Y+Z to Y+Z+Z it explicitly adds a provision so owners who sold X under the old law can reclaim ownership after the original Y years are expired.
Owner A exercises that right.
Buyer B says no you don't.
Owner A says, we'll see you in court.
Court agrees with owner A.

That doesn't seem fair, in 1938the Character Superman was sold and bought in good faith, just because S&S weren't smart enough to ensure that they would have gotten a piece of the future pie shouldn't be DC's fault.

This is part of that 'America entitlement society' that came out of the 30s. What did you expect?

Rob

 

[Professor Zoom]

A better word than sale might be lease.

A writer doesn't necessarily SELL his book to a publishing company, rather they might be leasing the RIGHT TO PRINT IT. The copyright is still there.

So, a better analogy might be...I lend you my lawnmower for a fee...and I want it back eventually...or keep paying a fee.

Now, whether or not Superman was work for hirer...that might cloud the issue.

In the end, it will hurt both parties to not come to an agreement.